Author: TSA Press

In
this
episode
I
chat
with

Cecilia
Poullain,
an
international
executive
coach
and
former
lawyer.
Cecilia
shares
insightful
career
transitions
from
law
to
coaching,
focusing
on
empowering
women
to
become
partners
in
law
firms.
The
episode
uncovers
the
hidden
challenges
of
partnership,
the
importance
of
confidence,
and
striking
a
work-life
balance.
Cecilia’s
personal
stories
reveal
the
necessity
of
understanding
one’s
true
career
desires.
A
must-listen
for
aspiring
partners
and
those
questioning
their
legal
career
path.

Highlights

• Transitioning
  from
  law
  to
  executive
  coaching.
• Valuable
  skills
  from
  a
  legal
  background
  in
  the
  financial
  sector.
• Discovering
  a
  path
  through
  Gestalt
  therapy.
• Challenges
  in
  the
  partnership
  journey
  for
  women.
• The
  hidden
  skills
  needed
  for
  partnership.
• Confidence
  issues
  and
  perfectionism
  in
  law.
• The
  loneliness
  and
  mental
  health
  in
  law
  firms.
• Recognizing
  and
  utilizing
  emotional
  intelligence
  in
  law.
• Balancing
  personal
  life
  with
  demanding
  legal
  careers.
• Flexibility
  in
  work
  arrangements
  as
  a
  solution.
• Navigating
  personal
  goals
  within
  rigid
  law
  firm
  structures.
• Coaching
  focus:
  achieving
  partnership
  to
  improve
  firm
  culture.

The
Jabot
podcast
is
an
offshoot
of
the
Above
the
Law
brand
focused
on
the
challenges
women,
people
of
color,
LGBTQIA,
and
other
diverse
populations
face
in
the
legal
industry.
Our
name
comes
from
none
other
than
the
Notorious
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
and
the
jabot
(decorative
collar)
she
wore
when
delivering
dissents
from
the
bench.
It’s
a
reminder
that
even
when
we
aren’t
winning,
we’re
still
a
powerful
force
to
be
reckoned
with.

Happy
listening!

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

One
of
the
more
interesting
sessions
at
the

Legal
Geek
conference
this
week
in
Chicago
was
a
panel
discussion
featuring
in-house
lawyers
from

Motorola
(Zhaoying
Du)
and
CSC
Generation
(Elizabeth
Brown).
We
often
hear
that
there
is
a
mismatch
between
what
in-house
clients
want
and
what
they
do
and
what
outside
lawyers
are
doing
(as
opposed
to
saying).
Du
and
Brown
offered
an
honest
and
insightful
look
not
only
on
how
AI
is
changing
and
will
change
the
relationship
between
in-house
and
outside
lawyers.
They
also
talked
about
the
struggles
in-house
counsel
are
having
in
the
brave
new
world
of
AI.

The
In-House
Perspective

Du
and
Brown
both
agreed
that
they
want
to
do
as
much
work
in-house
as
possible
and
believe
AI
will
provide
the
opportunity
to
do
more
and
more.
Today,
their
use
of
outside
counsel
is
limited
primarily
to
litigation
and
areas
where
they
have
limited
expertise
or
were
location
specific.
This
might
sound
like
a
boon
to
litigators
even
in
the
age
of
AI,
at
least
for
now.

On
the
flip
side,
both
in-house
counsel
want
their
outside
counsel
to
be
more
proactive
in
letting
in-house
lawyers
know
about
trends
that
could
impact
their
businesses.
They
both
believe
outside
counsel
are
in
unique
positions
to
see
what
is
happening
to
similar
businesses
they
represent.
In-house
counsel,
on
the
other
hand,
sometimes
have
a
myopic
vision
of
single
business
impacts.
AI
provides
significant
opportunities
to
those
outside
firms
who
use
the
tools
to
do
just
this.

In-House
Expectations

Both
Du
and
Brown
told
the
audience
that
they
now
expect
outside
lawyers
to
better
prove
their
value.
But
despite
this,
both
say
they
don’t
often
hear
how
their
outside
firms
are
using
AI
to
get
ahead
of
the
innovation
curve
or
what
kind
of
AI
tools
they
are
using. 
Both
seemed
committed
to
asking
more
of
outside
counsel
in
the
future
and
plan
to
set
expectations
for
AI
use
by
their
lawyers.
Brown
put
it
this
way:
we
want
outside
lawyers
to
“tell
us
what
AI
you
are
using,
how
you
scale
it
for
our
benefit
and
how
you
are
balancing
that
use
with
privacy
concerns.”
And
they
want
to
encourage
firms
to
use
AI
more
and
be
more
efficient.

In
short,
outside
lawyers
will
have
to
better
justify
how
much
they
are
getting
paid.

Fee
Structures

Both
counsels
are
open
to
changing
the
fee
structure
away
from
the
billable
hour
to
a
fixed
or
project-based
fee.
And
they
seemed
open
to
the
possibility
that
outside
lawyers
could
enhance
profits
from
those
structures
if
they
better
used
AI.
They
pointed
out
that
these
fee
structures
could
be
to
law
firms’
benefit
since
it
would
enable
them
to
do
the
work
for
less
than
what
they
bid.
But
they
both
wondered
how
well
some
of
their
firms
could
move
to
a
different
fee
structure
and
how
much
they
could
trust
the
estimates
being
offered.
(Of
course,
that’s
true
already
since
some
firms
and
lawyers
are
better
at
budgeting
than
others.)
Both
believed
that
to
use
a
fixed
or
project-based
structure,
it
would
have
to
be
with
a
firm
they
worked
with
before
and
that
they
could
trust.

Over
time
they
have
developed
a
strong
sense
of
how
long
something
will
take
and
what
it
costs.
Both
believe
that
they
can
use
AI
to
enhance
this
sense.

Similarly,
both
complained
bitterly
about
law
firms
that
bill
for
the
creation
of
a
document
as
if
something
similar
had
never
been
done
before.
They
see
this,
they
said,
over
and
over.
They
want
and
will
expect
firms
to
leverage
their
past
efforts
and
data
with
AI
tools
so
that
they
only
pay
for
the
time
spent
tailoring
a
document
to
a
specific
situation
and
client,
not
the
creation
anew.
Outside
client
should
have
a
playbook
for
document
creation
and
then
customize
the
document.

In-House
Struggles
and
Opportunities

On
the
other
side
of
the
equation,
both
recognized
that
in-house
counsel
also
face
AI
challenges.
They
feel
the
in-house
adoption
rate
is
lower
than
it
should
be
and
that
there
continues
to
be
lawyers
who
resist
using
AI
tools.
They
eagerly
want
their
departments
to
use
AI
to
improve
functionality
and
do
different
tasks.
They
recognize
the
need
to
be
cautious
but
see
lots
of
opportunities
to
save
time.
For
example,
AI
chatbots
could
be
used
to
answer
repetitive
inquiries
from
employees
and
then
determine
the
ROI
based
on
hours
saved.

Finally,
these
in-house
counsels
see
tremendous
opportunities
for
agentic
AI
for
“low
risk”
activities
like
responding
to
routine
emails
and
scheduling.
Brown
noted
that
agentic
AI
could
make
a
useful
clone
of
the
in-house
lawyer
for
these
tasks.

What
It
All
Means

Of
course,
this
means
in-house
counsel
will
have
more
time
on
their
hands
to
do
more
tasks
that
they
may
have
previously
sent
to
outside
lawyers.
And
AI
can
provide
useful
answers
in
some
specialty
areas
that
might
have
created
a
few
billable
moments
for
outside
lawyers.

So,
what
does
all
this
mean?
It
means
outside
lawyers
need
to
do
some
hard
thinking
about
what
their
clients
want
and
expect,
particularly
if
they
want
to
stay
competitive.
They
need
to
think
through
what
is
valuable,
how
to
provide
it
and
how
to
prove
it.
They
need
to
focus
on
how
to
gain
the
trust
of
their
clients
perhaps
more
so
than
ever.
There
are
lots
of
firms
out
there
and
AI
and
its
use
may
determine
who
wins.
And
who
loses.

---

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.

Safeguarding
the
legal
rights
of
all
persons
confronted
by
federal
law
enforcement
officers
is
all
the
more
important
where
this
administration’s
actions
have
already
resulted
in
the
unlawful
detention
of
visa-holders,
legal
permanent
residents,
and
United
States
citizens,
the
denial
of
due
process
to
wrongfully
detained
individuals,
and
defiance
of
court
orders
demanding
their
return,
alongside
an
escalating
practice
of
detaining
individuals
as
a
reprisal
for
the
exercise
of
their
First
Amendment
rights.
Just
as
no
democratic
government
should
seek
to
avoid
answering
to
its
people,
no
law
enforcement
officer
should
seek
to
avoid
the
scrutiny
required
to
ensure
their
actions
comport
with
the
law.
In
the
absence
of
the
ability
to
identify
individual
masked
agents,
those
who
supervise,
authorize,
and
oversee
their
actions
should
also
share
liability
for
the
deprivation
of
rights
under
the
Constitution.

Allowing
masked
[U.S.
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement
(ICE)]
agents
to
conduct
detentions
also
makes
it
increasingly
likely
that
third-party
actors
will
impersonate
federal
agents
and
use
their
anonymity
to
subject
vulnerable
populations
to
harassment
and
violence
under
the
apparent
color
of
law. In
recent
months,
ICE
agents
have
regularly
refused
to
present
warrants
when
requested.
Coupled
with
the
new
practice
of
face
coverings
during
detentions,
it
becomes
nearly
impossible
to
distinguish
the
conduct
of
an
imposter
from
that
of
an
authorized
agent.
Even
before
this
apparent
mask
policy
went
into
effect,
a
rise
in
crimes
perpetrated
by
individuals
impersonating
ICE
agents
and
other
law
enforcement
officers
–
including
harassment,
theft,
extortion,
assault,
battery,
sexual
assault,
and
kidnapping
–
was
being
reported.
Tragically,
at
this
writing,
the
suspect
in
the
recent
shootings
of
Minnesota
state
legislators
and
their
spouses
—
two
fatally
—
allegedly
disguised
himself
as
a
police
officer
when
approaching
them
at
their
respective
residences
at
the
time
of
the
attacks.

—
New
York
City
Bar
Association

issued
a
statement
critical
of
ICE’s
alarming

new
trend
of
conducting
arrests
while
masked,
saying
it
“appears
to
be
an
effort
to
evade
accountability,
and
to
decrease
transparency
in
response
to
increasing
allegations
of
government
overreach,
abuse
of
power,
and
violations
of
constitutional
rights.”
The
statement
continues,
“ICE
agents’
use
of
masks
not
only
screens
potential
abuses
of
power
and
shields
officers
from
accountability,
it
is
part
of
a
pattern
of
government
actions
enabling
the
rise
of
repressive
and
authoritarian
tactics.
The
images
of
people
being
grabbed
off
the
street
by
masked,
armed
men,
shoved
into
unmarked
vehicles,
and
taken
away
to
unknown
locations
bears
a
fearsome
resemblance
to
the
oppressive
tactics
of
authoritarian
regimes,
methods
of
repression
meant
to
eliminate
opposition
and
instill
terror.
We
must
not
tread
this
path.”

It’s
not
exactly
news
that
most
lawyers
work
incredibly
hard
for
their
clients. 

But
translating
that
work
into
positive
client
sentiment
is
another
story,
according
to
a
new
survey. 

The
Legal
Client
Experience
Report
by
the
client
engagement
platform
Case
Status
reveals
that
72%
of
lawyers
describe
their
firm
as
“caring”
—
while
just
40%
of
clients
say
the
same.

One
reason
for
this
gap
may
be
law
firms’
lack
of
attention
to
client
sentiment.  

While
66%
of
the
Fortune
1000
tracks
“net
promoter
score,”
for
example,
just
7%
of
surveyed
law
firms
do
the
same,
according
to
the
report. 

“As
a
result,”
it
says,
“the
vast
majority
[of
law
firms]
lack
insight
into
who
their
promoters
and
detractors
are.” 

First
reported
by
Law360
Pulse,
the
Legal
Client
Experience
Report
draws
on
a
survey
of
433
law
firm
clients,
a
survey
of
109
lawyers,
and
data
from
the
Case
Status
platform. 

The
2025
Legal
Client
Experience
Report
[Case
Status]

---

Jeremy
Barker
is
the
director
of
content
marketing
for
Breaking
Media.
Feel
free
to email
him with
questions
or
comments.

In
a
gift
from
the
digital
gods,
the
Colorado
appellate
courts
film
oral
argument
because
that
allows
us
to
follow
uncomfortably
along
with
this
installment
of
“Curb
Your
Enthusiasm:
SVU.”
While
arguing
whether
or
not
a
violent
sexual
assault
counts
as
a
single
act
or
can
be
broken
into
multiple
acts
to
further
ratchet
up
the
sentence,
the
prosecution’s
appellate
lawyer
addressed
Judge
Elizabeth
Harris
as…
well,
go
ahead
and
watch

And
as
the
post
says,
you
will
need
sound
because
the
only
friend
this
guy
had
in
the
courtroom
that
day
WAS
the
court
reporter
or
whoever
ran
the
subtitles
because
they
don’t
give

any
indication
of
what
specifically
threw
this
off
the
rails:

Bump
bump
bump,
ba
da
da
da,
ba
da
da
da,
ba
dum
da
da.

Judge
Terry
Fox
in
the
middle
plays
the
role
of
every
one
of
us.
Watch
her
face
break
out
into
a
laugh
before
immediately
realizing
she
needs
to
fight
it
back.
She
cycles
through
so
many
emotions
in
a
blink…
just
fantastic.

While
a
lot
of
the
replies
to
this
clip
focused
on
courtroom
misogyny
and
the
persistent
tapeworm
of
sexism
writhing
within
the
guts
of
the
legal
profession,
this
really
didn’t
feel
like
a
calculated
act
of
condescension.
There
may
be
some
backwater
lawyer
in
2025
who
still
thinks
of
every
woman
as
“sweetheart,”
but
that’s
not
likely
the
appellate
lawyer
for
the
state
of
Colorado.
This
reads
like
an
instinctual
verbal
reflex
that
springs
from
having
every
one
of
the
most
challenging
arguments
of
his
life
with
his
partner.

A
Freudian
slip-and-fall
if
you
will.

How
did
this
not

come
up
in
the
Texas
bankruptcy
court!
That
judge
was
secretly
living
with
the
lawyer
and
this
never
happened?!?
Respect.

Once
during
a
disagreement
with
a
woman
I
was
dating,
she
wheeled
around
and
snapped
at
me,
“MOMMY,
STOP
IT!”
Put
aside
for
a
moment
how
I
became
“mommy”
in
this
equation,
the
point
is
this
sort
of
slip
happens.
Or,
hell,
don’t
put
it
aside,
because
the
fact
that
I
played
the
role
of
“mommy”
in
this
anecdote
is
a
good
reminder
that
these
slips
don’t
even
necessarily
carry
gender
politics
baggage.
Sometimes
you’re
just
flustered
and
your
brain
plays
the
odds
and
defaults
to
the
person
who
usually
makes
you
flustered.

But,
dude,
you
have
to
be
quicker
with
a
mistake
of
these
proportions.
“I’m
so
sorry,
I
practiced
this
argument
with
my
wife
and
she
stressed
the
same
point
you’re
making
now.”
Or

something
along
those
lines.
As
the
moment
drags
on
it
gets
worse
and
worse.
Which,
of
course,
is
the
soul
of
cringe
comedy:
it
could
almost
always
be
fixed
if
it
wasn’t
allowed
to
hang
there
for
whatever
reason.

And
yet,
in
the
cringe,
there’s
a
perverse
kind
of
hope.
Our
reaction
reminds
us
that
misogyny
exists
and
how
jarring
it
is
to
encounter
in
court.
Even
if
it
wasn’t
this
guy’s
specific
intent,
we
recoil
at
this
slip
because
we
can
all
imagine
some
seersucker
Matlock
clone
asking
a
judge
where
her
boss
is.
Courtroom
decorum
is
important,
but
it
also
obscures
a
lot
of
issues
that
boil
under
the
surface.
Sometimes
a
little
disruption
reminds
us
of
what’s
important.

And
if
you
want
something
amusingly
horrifying
to
end
on,
remember
that
this
is
an
appellate
lawyer
for
the
state.
This
isn’t
the
only
oral
argument
he’s
going
to
have…
he’s
probably
going
to
have
to
keep
standing
up
in
front
of
these
judges
and
their
colleagues
again
and
again.

At
least
he
seems
to
have
some
emotional
support
at
home.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Let’s
be
real,
most
lawyers
are
grinding
themselves
into
the
ground.

Stress,
exhaustion,
and
burnout
aren’t
badges
of
honor.
They’re
warning
signs.
And
if
you
don’t
listen
to
them
now,
your
body
will
make
sure
you
do
later. 

“It’s
so
critical
that
lawyers
start
to
quiet
their
mind
and
regulate
their
nervous
systems,
because
if
you
don’t,
you’re
gonna
hit
a
wall
at
some
point
in
your
practice,
and
you’re
not
gonna
like
it,”
says
Adam
Ouellette,
a
former
law
firm
owner
and
creator
of
the
Stress
Less
course
for
lawyers.
“Most
people
won’t
change
until
they
have
to.”

In
this
episode
of
“Be
That
Lawyer,”
I
sit
down
with
Adam
to
explore
the
toll
that
unmanaged
stress
takes
on
lawyers,
and
how
to
reclaim
your
health
before
it’s
too
late.
We
talk
about
breathwork,
tech,
and
smarter
ways
to
run
your
practice. 

Stress
Isn’t
Just
Mental,
It’s
Physical 

Chronic
stress
rewires
your
nervous
system.
Migraines,
insomnia,
and
burnout
aren’t
just
unfortunate,
they’re
the
body
begging
for
change. Here,
Adam
explains
why
you
should
be
proactive
in
addressing
stress.

Breathe
Like
It
Matters 

Simple
tools
like
the
“micropause”
method
can
instantly
shift
your
system
from
fight-or-flight
to
calm
and
focused.
Here,
Adam
gives
a
quick
overview.

Push
Too
Hard,
Pay
the
Price 

Here,
Adam
shares
how
he
had
ignored
the
signs
of
stress
—
tight
chest,
migraines,
that
deep-down
tension
you
think
you
can
power
through
—
and
the
ultimate
result
on
the
busiest
day
of
the
year.

You
can
listen
to
the
full
conversation
here.
You
can
also
check
out
our

most
recent
episode
here. 

---

Steve
Fretzin
is
a
bestselling
author,
host
of
the
“Be
That
Lawyer”
podcast,
and
business
development
coach
exclusively
for
attorneys.
Steve
has
committed
his
career
to
helping
lawyers
learn
key
growth
skills
not
currently
taught
in
law
school.
His
clients
soon
become
top
rainmakers
and
credit
Steve’s
program
and
coaching
for
their
success.
He
can
be
reached
directly
by
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
easily
find
him
on
his
website
at www.fretzin.com or
LinkedIn
at https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevefretzin.

Many
law
students
and
lawyers
alike
have
long
dreamed
of
someday
working
in
New
York,
the
city
that
never
sleeps
(especially
if
they
wind
up
as
Biglaw
associates).
New
York
firms
are
regarded
as
the
crown
jewels
of
the
legal
profession,
and
it’s
in
New
York
where
firms
typically
set
the
stage
for
Biglaw
salaries
and
bonuses
across
the
country.
But
which
firm
is
considered
the
best
in
the
Big
Apple?

Thanks
to
Vault’s
recently
released
regional
rankings,
we
now
know
which
Biglaw
firms
are
dominating
the
legal
scene
in
Manhattan.
This
ranking
is
based
on
votes
tabulated
from
associates
who
were
asked
to
rate
firms
on
a
1
to
10
scale
based
on
their
prestige
within
the
region.

Here
are
the
top
10
most
prestigious
firms
in
New
York
(you
can
see
the
full
list
from
Vault
by
clicking

here):

1. Wachtell,
   Lipton,
   Rosen
   &
   Katz
   (+1)
2. Cravath,
   Swaine
   &
   Moore
   (-1)
3. Skadden
   (+1)
4. Davis
   Polk
   &
   Wardwell
   (-1)
5. Sullivan
   &
   Cromwell
6. Paul,
   Weiss,
   Rifkind,
   Wharton
   &
   Garrison
7. Latham
   &
   Watkins
8. Simpson
   Thacher
9. Kirkland
   &
   Ellis
10. Milbank
    (+4)

There’s
some
big
news
here,
as
Wachtell
surpasses
Cravath
for
the
No.
1
spot,
and
Milbank
finally
enters
the
Top
10,
much
like
what
happened
in
the
Vault
100.
Cravath
is
(somehow)
no
longer
regarded
as
the
most
prestigious
firm
in
New
York,
but
unlike
Wachtell,
it
will
still
command
the
associate
salary
scale.
Other
firms
here,
like
Milbank
and
Davis
Polk,
have
also
raised
the
stakes
on
bonuses,
special
bonuses,
and
associate
salaries
in
recent
years. 

Congratulations
to
all
of
the
Biglaw
firms
that
made
the
latest
edition
of
Vault’s
New
York
rankings.
How
did
your
firm
do
this
time
around? Email
us,
text
us
at
(646)
820-8477,
or
tweet
us @atlblog to
let
us
know
how
you
feel.

2026
Best
Law
Firms
in
New
York [Vault]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Brazil’s
Supreme
Court
appears
close
to
ruling
that social
media
companies
should
be
liable
for
content
hosted
on
their
platforms—a
move
that
appears
to
represent
a
significant
departure
from
the
country’s
pioneering
Marco
Civil
internet
law.
While
this
approach
has
obvious
appeal
to
people
frustrated
with
platform
failures,
it’s
likely
to
backfire
in
ways
that
make
the
underlying
problems
worse,
not
better.

The
core
issue
is
that
most
people
fundamentally
misunderstand
both
how
content
moderation
works
and
what
drives
platform
incentives.
There’s
a
persistent
myth
that
companies
could
achieve
near-perfect
moderation
if
they
just
“tried
harder”
or
faced
sufficient
legal
consequences.
This
ignores
the
mathematical
reality
of
what
happens
when
you
attempt
to
moderate
billions
of
pieces
of
content
daily,
and
it
misunderstands
how
liability
actually
changes
corporate
behavior.

Part
of
the
confusion,
I
think,
stems
from
people’s
failure
to
understand the
impossibility
of
doing
content
moderation
well
at
scale.
There
is
a
very
wrong
assumption
that
social
media
platforms
could
do
perfect
(or
very
good)
content
moderation
if
they
just
tried
harder
or
had
more
incentive
to
do
better.
Without
denying
that some entities
(*cough*
ExTwitter
*cough*)
have
made
it
clear
they
don’t
care
at
all,
most
others
do
try
to
get
this
right,
and discover
over
and
over
again how
impossible
that
is.

Yes,
we
can
all
point
to
examples
of
platform
failures
that
are
depressing
and
seem
obvious
that
things
should
have
been
done
differently,
but
the
failures
are
not
there
because
“the
laws
don’t
require
it.”
The
failures
are
because
it’s
impossible
to
do
this
well
at
scale.
Some
people
will
always
disagree
with
how
a
decision
comes
out,
and
other
times
there
are
no
“right”
answers.
Also,
sometimes,
there’s
just
too
much
going
on
at
once,
and
no
legal
regime
in
the
world
can
possibly
fix
that.

Given
all
of
that,
what
we
really
want
are better
overall
incentives for
the
companies
to
do
better.
Some
people
(again,
falsely)
seem
to
think
the
only
incentives
are
regulatory.
But
that’s
not
true.
Incentives
come
in
all
sorts
of
shapes
and
sizes—and
much
more
powerful
than
regulations
are
things
like the
users
themselves, along
with
advertisers
and
other
business
partners.

Importantly,
content
moderation
is
also
a
constantly
moving
and
evolving
issue.
People
who
are
trying
to
game
the
system
are
constantly
adjusting.
New
kinds
of
problems
arise
out
of
nowhere.
If
you’ve
never done
content
moderation,
you
have
no
idea
how
many
“edge
cases”
there
are.
Most
people—incorrectly—assume
that
most
decisions
are
easy
calls
and
you
may
occasionally
come
across
a
tougher
one.

But
there
are
constant
edge
cases,
unique
scenarios,
and
unclear
situations.
Because
of
this,
every
service
provider will
make
many,
many
mistakes every
day.
There’s
no
way
around
this.
It’s
partly
the
law
of
large
numbers.
It’s
partly
the
fact
that
humans
are
fallible.
It’s
partly
the
fact
that
decisions
need
to
be
made
quickly
without
full
information.
And
a
lot
of
it
is
that
those
making
the
decisions
just
don’t
know
what
the
“right”
approach
is.

The
way
to
get
better
is constant
adjusting and
experimenting.
Moderation
teams
need
to
be
adaptable.
They
need
to
be
able
to
respond
quickly.
And
they
need
the
freedom
to
experiment
with
new
approaches
to
deal
with
bad
actors
trying
to
abuse
the
system.

Putting
legal
liability
on
the
platform
makes
all
of
that
more
difficult

Now,
here’s
where
my
concerns
about
the
potential
ruling
in
Brazil
get
to:
if
there
is legal
liability, it
creates
a
scenario
that
is
actually less
likely to
lead
to
good
outcomes.
First,
it
effectively
requires
companies
to
replace
moderators
with
lawyers.
If
your
company
is
now
making
decisions
that
come
with
significant
legal
liability,
that
likely
requires
a
much
higher
type
of
expertise.
Even
worse,
it’s
creating
a
job
that
most
people
with
law
degrees
are
unlikely
to
want.

Every
social
media
company
has
at
least
some
lawyers
who
work
with
their
trust
&
safety
teams
to
review
the
really
challenging
cases,
but
when
legal
liability
could
accrue
for
every
decision,
it
becomes
much,
much
worse.

More
importantly,
though,
it
makes
it way
more
difficult for
trust
&
safety
teams
to
experiment
and
adapt.
Once
things
include
the
potential
of
legal
liability,
then
it
becomes
much
more
important
for
the
companies
to
have
some
sort
of
plausible
deniability—some
way
to
express
to
a
judge
“look,
we’re
doing
the
same
thing
we
always
have,
the
same
thing
every
company
has
always
done”
to
cover
themselves
in
court.

But
that
means
that
these
trust
&
safety
efforts
get
hardened
into
place,
and
teams
are
less
able
to
adapt
or
to
experiment
with
better
ways
to
fight
evolving
threats.
It’s
a
disaster
for
companies
that
want
to
do
the
right
thing.

The
next
problem
with
such
a
regime
is
that
it
creates
a
real
heckler’s
veto-type
regime.
If anyone complains
about anything, companies
are
quick
to
take
it
down,
because
the
risk
of
ruinous
liability
just
isn’t
worth
it.
And
we
now have decades of
evidence showing
that
increasing
liability
on
platforms
leads
to
massive
overblocking
of
information.
I
recognize
that
some
people
feel
this
is
acceptable
collateral
damage…
right
up
until
it
impacts
them.

This
dynamic
should
sound
familiar
to
anyone
who’s
studied
internet
censorship.
It’s
exactly
how
China’s
Great
Firewall
originally
operated—not
through
explicit
rules
about
what
was
forbidden,
but
by telling
service
providers that
the
punishment
would
be
severe
if
anything
“bad”
got
through.
The
government
created
deliberate
uncertainty
about
where
the
line
was,
knowing
that
companies
would
respond
with
massive
overblocking
to
avoid
potentially
ruinous
consequences.
The
result
was
far
more
comprehensive
censorship
than
direct
government
mandates
could
have
achieved.

Brazil’s
proposed
approach
follows
this
same
playbook,
just
with
a
different
enforcement
mechanism.
Rather
than
government
officials
making
vague
threats,
it
would
be
civil
liability
creating
the
same
incentive
structure:
when
in
doubt,
take
it
down,
because
the
cost
of
being
wrong
is
too
high.

People
may
be
okay
with
that,
but
I
would
think
that
in
a
country
with
a
history
of
dictatorships
and
censorship,
they
would
like
to
be
a
bit
more
cautious
before
handing
the
government
a
similarly
powerful
tool
of
suppression.

It’s
especially
disappointing
in
Brazil,
which
a
decade
ago
put
together the
Marco
Civil,
an
internet
civil
rights
law
that
was
designed
to
protect
user
rights
and
civil
liberties—including
around
intermediary
liability.
The
Marco
Civil
remains
an
example
of
more
thoughtful
internet
lawmaking
(way
better
than
we’ve
seen
almost
anywhere
else,
including
the
US).
So
this
latest
move
feels
like
backsliding.

Either
way,
the
longer-term
fear
is
that
this
would
actually
limit
the
ability
of
smaller,
more
competitive
social
media
players
to
operate
in
Brazil,
as
it
will
be
way
too
risky.
The
biggest
players
(Meta)
aren’t
likely
to
leave,
but
they
have
buildings
full
of
lawyers
who
can
fight
these
lawsuits
(and
often,
likely,
win).
A
study
we
conducted
a
few
years
back
detailed
how
as
countries
ratcheted
up
their
intermediary
liability,
the
end
result
was,
repeatedly, fewer
online
places
to
speak.

That
doesn’t
actually
improve
the
social
media
experience
at
all.
It
just
gives
more
of
it
to
the
biggest
players
with
the
worst
track
records.
Sure,
a
few
lawsuits
may
extract
some
cash
from
these
companies
for
failing
to
be
perfect,
but
it’s
not
like
they
can
wave
a
magic
wand
and
not
let
any
“criminal”
content
exist.
That’s
not
how
any
of
this
works.

Some
responses
to
issues
raised
by
critics

When
I
wrote
about
this
on
a
brief
Bluesky
thread,
I
received
hundreds
of
responses—many
quite
angry—that
revealed
some
common
misunderstandings
about
my
position.
I’ll
take
the
blame
for
not
expressing
myself
as
clearly
as
I
should
have
and
I’m
hoping
the
points
above
lay
out
the
argument
more
clearly
regarding
how
this
could
backfire
in
dangerous
ways.
But,
since
some
of
the
points
were
repeated
at
me
over
and
over
again
(sometimes
with
clever
insults),
I
thought
it
would
be
good
to
address
some
of
the
arguments
directly:

But
social
media
is
bad,
so
if
this
gets
rid
of
all
of
it,
that’s
good. I
get
that
many
people
hate
social
media
(though,
there
was
some
irony
in
people
sending
those
messages
to
me
on
social
media).
But,
really
what
most
people
hate
is
what
they
see
on
social
media.
And
as
I
keep
explaining,
the
way
we
fix
that
is
with
more
experimentation
and
more
user
agency—not
handing
everything
over
to
Mark
Zuckerberg
and
Elon
Musk
or
the
government.

Brazil
doesn’t
have
a
First
Amendment,
so
shut
up
and
stop
with
your
colonialist
attitude. I
got
this
one
repeatedly
and
it’s…
weird?
I
never
suggested
Brazil
had
a
First
Amendment,
nor
that
it
should
implement
the
equivalent.
I
simply
pointed
out
the
inevitable
impact
of
increasing
intermediary
liability
on
speech.
You
can
decide
(as
per
the
comment
above)
that
you’re
fine
with
this,
but
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
my
feelings
about
the
First
Amendment.
I
wasn’t
suggesting
Brazil
import
American
free
speech
laws
either.
I
was
simply
pointing
out
what
the
consequences
of
this
one
change
to
the
law
might
create.

Existing
social
media
is
REALLY
BAD,
so
we
need
to
do
this. This
is
the
classic
“something
must
be
done,
this
is
something,
we
will
do
this”
response.
I’m
not
saying
nothing
must
be
done.
I’m
just
saying
this
particular
approach
will
have
significant
consequences
that
it
would
help
people
to
think
through.

It
only
applies
to
content
after
it’s
been
adjudicated
as
criminal. I
got
that
one
a
few
times
from
people.
But,
from
my
reading,
that’s
not
true
at
all.
That’s
what
the existing
law was.
These
rulings
would
expand
it
greatly
from
what
I
can
tell.
Indeed,
the
article
notes
how
this
would
change
things
from
existing
law:

The
current
legislation
states
social
media
companies
can
only
be
held
responsible
if
they
do
not
remove
hazardous
content
after
a
court
order.

[….]

Platforms
need
to
be
pro-active
in
regulating
content,
said
Alvaro
Palma
de
Jorge,
a
law
professor
at
the
Rio-based
Getulio
Vargas
Foundation,
a
think
tank
and
university.

“They
need
to
adopt
certain
precautions that
are
not
compatible
with
simply
waiting
for
a
judge
to
eventually
issue
a
decision ordering
the
removal
of
that
content,”
Palma
de
Jorge
said.

You’re
an
anarchocapitalist
who
believes
that
there
should
be
no
laws
at
all,
so
fuck
off. This
one
actually
got
sent
to
me
a
bunch
of
times
in
various
forms.
I
even
got
added
to
a
block
list
of
anarchocapitalists.
Really
not
sure
how
to
respond
to
that
one
other
than
saying
“um,
no,
just
look
at
anything
I’ve
written
for
the
past
two
and
a
half
decades.”

America
is
a
fucking
mess
right
now,
so
clearly
what
you
are
pushing
for
doesn’t
work. This
one
was
the
weirdest
of
all.
Some
people
sending
variations
on
this
pointed
to
multiple
horrific
examples
of
US
officials
trampling
on
Americans’
free
speech,
saying
“see?
this
is
what
you
support!”
as
if
I
support
those
things,
rather
than
consistently
fighting
back
against
them.
Part
of
the
reason
I’m
suggesting
this
kind
of
liability
can
be
problematic
is
because
I
want
to stop other
countries
from
heading
down
a
path
that
gives
governments
the
power
to
stifle
speech
like
the
US
is
doing
now.

I
get
that
many
people
are—reasonably!—frustrated
about
the
terrible
state
of
the
world
right
now.
And
many
people
are
equally
frustrated
by
the
state
of
internet
discourse.
I
am
too.
But
that
doesn’t
mean any solution
will
help.
Many
will
make
things
much
worse.
And
the
solution
Brazil
is
moving
towards
seems
quite
likely
to
make
the
situation
worse
there.

Why
Making
Social
Media
Companies
Liable
For
User
Content
Doesn’t
Do
What
Many
People
Think
It
Will

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

SCOTUS
Simply
Ignores
Precedent,
Rather
Than
Overruling
It,
In
Allowing
Trump
To
Fire
Officials
Congress
Deemed
Independent

Feds
Arrest
Yet
Another
Democrat
For
The
Crime
Of
Helping
Others
Under
Attack
From
ICE

Surprise:
Minnesota
Killer
Used
Data
Brokers
To
Target
And
Murder
Politicians

*
It’s
that
time
of
year
to
start
wildly
speculating
about
Supreme
Court
retirements.
[ABA
Journal]

*
A
new
decision
strikes
down
medical
privacy
rules
to
give
prosecutors
more
access
to
scour
private
abortion
records.
It
will
shock
you
not
at
all
that
this
comes
from
Judge
Matthew
Kacsmaryk
sitting
by
himself
in
Amarillo.
Weird…
the
GOP
was
up
in
arms
about
district
courts
issuing
nationwide
rulings
a
few
weeks
ago.
[The
Hill]

*
It’s
telling
that
Cuomo’s
history
on
judicial
nominees
barely
even
registers
on
the
list
of
reasons
not
to
vote
for
him.
[New
York
Law
Journal]

*
Administration
plans
to
tie
infrastructure
funds
to
willingness
to
consign
local
law
enforcement
to
immigration
work.
[Reuters]

*
“Texas
Judge
Brings
Outsider
View
to
Bankruptcy
Romance
Scandal”
is
objectively
a
bizarre
string
of
words
that
we
have
to
string
together
these
days.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
State
AGs
warn
about
the
dangers
of
a
federal
ban
on
state
AI
regulations.
[Law360]

*
The

Skrmetti
opinion
is
destined
for
infamy,
if
the
country
survives
long
enough.
[The
Nation]